We are the 99%

June 10, 2008

John McCain: Defender of Women's Health

From Brave New Films:

A vote for McCain is a vote against - well you know the rest.

Some background. As far as I can tell, the amendment that McCain voted against was an amendment to S.Con.Res.18 of March 17 of 2005.

And how about the irony here? It was sponsored by Senator Clinton. The stated purpose:
To expand access to preventive health care services that reduce unintended pregnancy (including teen pregnancy), reduce the number of abortions, and improve access to women's health care.
And Senator McCain voted against it.

He's got a rating of 0 (aka "Zero," "Zilch," "Nada," and the ever-popular "Lowest Score Possible") from NARAL for the last six years running.

26 comments:

Anonymous said...

John K. says: That is odd, C. Matthews said the moderate Republicans are going to have trouble with McCain when they find out he is not really pro-life. He stated the religious right is going to have to force him to "sign a pledge" (figuratively speaking) on this issue. And then you post this? You left wingers need to get on the same page.

Schmuck Shitrock said...

You left wingers need to get on the same page.

Why is that, John?

Anonymous said...

As an Obama supporter, how to you feel about this topic Mr. Shitrock?
Please I'd like to know.

L.K. said...

Yes, John... I have heard similar things, and it DOES make it confusing, doesn't it?

However, dear David... if McCain DOES have the view that you say he does, then what it indicates is that he does not want to see women hurt by them potentially harming their bodies, either by contraception or abortion.

Unfortunately, many are unaware of the medical complications that can arise with either of these. Instead, sexual immaturity comes into play here, where one's whims and desires become paramount, and all else, even one's own health or safety, becomes less important.

Now, I know I'll get flack for the "sexual immaturity" comment. But I can explain more about that, if need be.

: )

Anonymous said...

John K. says: Remember Obama thinks children are mistakes to be minimized so they do not affect the future of the adults.

Schmuck Shitrock said...

Obama thinks children are mistakes to be minimized

When did Sen. Obama say that, John? Do you have a quote or a link, or is this just something you thought you heard Rush say?

Schmuck Shitrock said...

I'll get flack for the "sexual immaturity" comment. But I can explain more about that, if need be.

We would be grateful if you would share this expertise with us, l.k.

Schmuck Shitrock said...

As an Obama supporter, how to you feel about this topic Mr. Shitrock?
Please I'd like to know.


If you mean that you are an Obama supporter, Anon, that's fine. I am not particularly one. I certainly wanted him to take Sen. Clinton out of the race, as I find her to be a dangerous person. I'm not sure, though, that I can support Obama's reckless threat to Pakistan and his shaky pronouncement about Jerusalem.

I'll be happy to answer your question though, but I'm not sure what you're asking me. Are you interested in my position about abortion?

jaywillie said...

Alright, let's try to make some sense out of the mangle language of our dear John K.

The problem for McCain would be with moderate Republicans, many of whom are pro-choice(see Philly suburbs). Because McCain's pro-life stance is not widely known, as it's been lost in the illusion of the "Maverick" concocted after the senator was admonished for his role as a member of the Keating Five, most people would not guess that he is pro-life.

What is interesting is that despite this McCain has a lot of problems with social conservatives in the Republican party. Recently, campaign advisors went to Ohio to visit the man who pushed that state's gay marriage ban - the meeting went badly, the guy said he wants nothing to do with McCain or his campaign and that McCain is having a hard time convincing Republican Christians that they can trust him.

I'd like to take a moment to point out that the Religious Right is largely a collection of dupes who have allowed themselves to be played in election after election. Republicans like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush pay lip service to the issues that matter to the Religious Right, but never did anything seriously about it.

I don't expect most of them to ever vote Democratic, but I do not understand why they still allow themselves to be used by the Republican party. When the GOP had the House, Senate and White House, they did nothing to achieve the goals of the Religious right, their most loyal bloc of voters.

Now, I find this notion that McCain's position is derived from his concern that "sexually immature" women will hurt themselves rather amusing. And, frankly, that explanation makes little sense when the purpose of S. Con. Res. 18 was intended to "reduce unintended pregancies, reduce the number of abortions and improve acces to women's health care."

Now, I know the Republican party bemoans the "nanny state," but for the life of me, I don't understand what qualifies John McCain to know more than a women's doctor.

Yes, l.k., it's probably a fair statement to say that most people don't know in much detail the side effects of certain types of contraception or complications that can arise for abortion. But it is also a very misleading statement as, being very familiar with the health care industry, a doctor would be a very poor one if he/she did not discuss with that with the patient first.

Of course, many types of contraception are over-the-counter but the side-effects associated with condoms, diaphrams and most "barrier" methods are not remotely life-threatening.

One cannot get the pill without a prescription and most other hormonal methods. And considering everything is regulated by the FDA, the side-effects are known and, to some extent, we must consider the user somewhat responsible for knowing what they are using. Again, it would be a very poor doctor indeed that did not discuss potential side-effects with his/her patients.

If McCain's concern is so great for women, why is he making it harder to protect them from STD's and unwanted pregnancies that could arise because of sexual violence?

Whether social conservatives like it or not, limiting the spread of STD's is a matter of public health. I do not see the morality in condemning people for what has been described as "sexual maturity."

It is very amusing that the American people are expected to believe that a Bush Republcian, which John McCain most certainly is having voted w/ the president 95% of the time over the last two years(if he didn't want be linked to Bush, then he shouldn't have soldout to win the nomination), is going to protect us, when Republicans have failed so often to protect the American people, whether it's lead-tainted toys or contaminated dog food(and don't blame China - we imported it; you don't buy something w/o knowing what you're getting);the greed-mongers of Wall Street and the corporate world that are bleeding the American people dry; ll of the states unable to adequately manage during times of natural destruction because their National Guard units and reserve units must defend a war that has not made us safer(why is it o.k. for Maliki to meet w/ Iranian leaders, btw?)...

John McCain's position isn't one out of concern; it is the reality that he is beholden to certain political interests intent on punishing the greater population for our "sins." He didn't spend all that time kissing up to Falwell for nothing.

The tragedy for John McCain is that religous voters still don't trust him.

Anonymous said...

John K. says: When did Hussein Obama say Children are mistakes? During a campaign stop. You missed it. We on the right did not. Nor did the religious right.

Anonymous said...

If you read the text on the video then you would understand that jackass mccain is not against birth control-he's against making his millionare buddies in the health insurance industry pay for birth control prescriptions.
You know how you get your birth control filled for a copay now-he wants to save his corporate a-hole friend some dough by making you pay full price for your prescription.
He's not pro-life - he's pro-corporation.

"Fair and Balanced" Dave said...

However, dear David... if McCain DOES have the view that you say he does, then what it indicates is that he does not want to see women hurt by them potentially harming their bodies, either by contraception or abortion.

Shorter John McCain: "We know that you women don't know what's best for you so it's up to us men to look out for your best interests. Just trust us."

Schmuck Shitrock said...

When did Hussein Obama say Children are mistakes? During a campaign stop.

Please supply a link. Unless, of course, this is just a figment of Rush's imagination.

Heir to the Throne said...

Schmuck Shitrock said...
When did Hussein Obama say Children are mistakes? During a campaign stop.

Please supply a link. Unless, of course, this is just a figment of Rush's imagination.


Here you go.

Barack Obama: I Don’t Want My Daughters “Punished” With A Baby

“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” he said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.”


The Audacity of Death

As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama twice opposed legislation to define as "persons" babies who survive late-term abortions. Babies like Gianna. Mr. Obama said in a speech on the Illinois Senate floor that he could not accept that babies wholly emerged from their mother's wombs are "persons," and thus deserving of equal protection under the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

Schmuck Shitrock said...

Thanks, Mein Heir for taking up John's inability to create a link, and particularly for contradicting him. As you so aptly point out, Sen. Obama did not call children "a mistake" as John claimed. Rather, he called the behavior that caused the pregnancy a mistake.

Do you (or John) maintain that most sixteen year-old sex is not a mistake?

Since you brought up the topic, do you think those kind of mistakes should be punished with STDs as many on the Right do?

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Shitrock said:
Since you brought up the topic, do you think those kind of mistakes should be punished with STDs as many on the Right do?

Could you please provide a link that substantiates this claim? Please Schmuck I would like to know.

Schmuck Shitrock said...

Could you please provide a link that substantiates this claim? Please Schmuck I would like to know.

Your wish is my command:
"Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful," Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council told the British magazine New Scientist, "because they may see it as a license to engage in premarital sex."

Anonymous said...

Sorry Schmuck but that link FAILS. Try providing a link to something mainstream and not with an extremist agenda.
The information you provided does tell a tale of a woman who suggests that the HPV vaccine may be an open invitation to promiscuity. I'm sure that most conservatives do not share this opinion. Only a fool would paint with such a broad brush.

Schmuck Shitrock said...

Sorry the link fails for you, Anon. It works for me.

It appears that we agree about at least two things:
-- that the morbid fear of female sexuality is foolish and
-- likely not shared by all Conservatives.

May I offer a suggestion: Use a consistent screen name. It's a bit off-putting not knowing which anonymous poster I'm addressing.

jaywillie said...

No appreciation for The Nation, huh, one of our oldest periodicals?

I suppose we could also ask the religious right to stop quoting from their extremist interpretation of the Bible and to stop using the Bible to support the Bible(that's always one of my favorites).

I suppose we could parse whether McCain is pro-life(he's on record supporting the complete overturning of RvW) or pro-corporate(which he most certainly is, thinks he believes it's a good idea to turn over something like health care, where the bottom line is a person's well-being, to people whose only bottom line is making money, whether that comes at the expense of someone's heatlh, so be it).

Either way, it's pretty clear that John McCain is not interested in women's health and that has alligned himself with the moralists who want to punish the population for their "sins." Whether he soothes his ego by telling himself that he's really just a corporate whore or not seems secondary to me.

Now, this idea that Obama thinks children are a mistake - the fact that the right has already crawled down to this level to attack him is telling; I expect this kind of nonsense in September and October...

Imagine the cognitive dissonance required to actually utter that statement and believe it, considering that Obama has TWO DAUGHTERS of his own...

Again, since John McCain and his Republican friends have driven the country into a ditch and have no policies to offer other than the same failed policies of the last 8 years, their only recourse is to smear, distort and lie - standard operating procedure for Republicans.

Republicans are scared because this most loyal of voting blocs, that has supported them for so long, is fractured and their votes are in play. Many of them simply realized that there wasn't anything compassionate about Bush's conservatism.

Anonymous said...

John K. says: I have always found it odd that the left brags about how many future human beings they have killed. It just seems odd to me. The liberals seem to take pride in the fact that they snuff out human life without due process of the law. These little folks cannot even defend themselves or ask for a lawyer. One of the weird things about being a left wing kook.

Schmuck Shitrock said...

Once again I'll have to ask you for some sources for Lefties bragging about how many lives they have snuffed out, and how any of this was done without due process.

Anonymous said...

Having a baby when you are young and ill prepared to be a mother is difficult at best and at worse - yes it is a burden. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an insane man who probably has no chance of EVER becoming a father because becoming a father involves sex with a WOMAN.

L.K. said...

Shmuck said:
"We would be grateful if you would share this expertise with us, l.k."


If it's okay with you, I'd like to keep it simple. By this comment, I meant "promiscuous sex" where the participant has no thought of any consequence, side effect, or emotional difficulty that may arise.

L.K. said...

For David:

Can a woman trust a man? If he is good- if he is noble- if he is, in a word, trustworthy? I say a resounding yes. Let us not bash all the good, noble, trustworthy men who DO truly want good for women. I think the problem is that women don't believe such men exist.

But they do.

L.K. said...

As for jaywillie-

Right now there is not enough time to respond to you-- unfortunately. But I really want to; there's so much to comment on!

And I like you. I disagree with you, but at least you have interesting points to share.

I'll be back.